ATR Supports Senate GOP Payroll Tax Break Extension

We spoke yesterday about how Senate Democrats will be voting today on a massive new tax hike on job creators merely to extend existing tax relief for workers. Thankfully, senators have a great alternative to this destructive, jobs-killing plan.

It makes a lot more sense to make federal bureaucrats feel the pain than it does for small employers on Main Street to feel the pain.

This is a no-brainer. The plan not only doesn't add to the deficit, it reduces it through spending cuts only. It puts in place long-overdue reforms to the federal workforce, and it doesn't raise taxes on anyone.

What do you think? Which version of the payroll tax bill would you rather see Congress pass?

The Graham-Cassidy bill repeals Obamacare’s individual mandate tax. The tax hits 6.7 million American households. 79% of these households have incomes of less than $50,000 per year. A new state-by-state breakdown compiled by the office of Sen. Steve Daines (R-Mont.) using official IRS data for tax year 2015 can be found here.

The fate of the tax depends on the votes of the senators from key states below:

In 2015, these households had to pay the IRS $14,680,000 for choosing not to purchase Obamacare, an average tax of $427 per household.

81% of West Virginia households paying this tax make less than $50,000 per year.

If Sen. Manchin votes NO, West Virginians will be forced to pay Obamacare’s individual mandate tax simply for choosing not to purchase Obamacare.

The individual mandate tax is one of many Obamacare taxes that violate Obama’s “firm pledge” not to raise any form of tax on any American making less than $250,000 per year. Documentation of Obama’s shattered promise can be found here. Senators voting NO on Graham-Cassidy are voting to continue to stick their constituents with this tax.

Please visit the website of the office of Sen. Daines to get a handy PDF of the state by state IRS Obamacare tax data. Call your Senators and urge them to vote YES on Graham-Cassidy.

The European Union (EU) has recently revived plans for corporate tax harmonization. Such a plan will establish a uniform corporate tax rate across all its member nations. Currently, EU member nations set their own corporate tax rates, resulting in rates ranging from 10% in Bulgaria to as high as 35% in Malta. The ability for a nation to control their corporate tax rate allows for tax competition between nations. In today’s economy, capital is highly mobile. Multinational corporations can move their headquarters to low-tax jurisdictions from high-tax ones. Countries with low tax rates compared to their neighbors are at a comparative advantage in their ability to attract investment and jobs.

By harmonizing corporate tax rates across the EU, this competition, a pillar upon which the free market is built, is destroyed. Any sort of tax harmonization enacted will be toward the higher end of the tax spectrum. This will allow high-tax nations such as France to no longer lose companies and investment to lower taxed nations such as Ireland. Tax harmonization will limit the ability of people and corporations to move at will, as it reduces economic incentives through a supranational approach.

The push for higher corporate taxation in the EU comes at a time when the United States is headed in the opposite direction. President Trump has proposed slashing the United States’ 35% corporate tax rate (the highest in the developed world) to 15%. This aims to attract more investment to the U.S., as well as stop the flow of companies relocating their headquarters abroad in order to pay lower rates. The trend in recent decades has been for developed nations to cut their corporate rates in favor of lower, more pro-growth rates; a sign that tax competition works in promoting nations to lower corporate taxes in order to attract more business.

Taxes are the price a company pays for doing business. Just as two restaurants may compete over who can offer the better deal, so too should countries be able to compete using their tax codes. As Contribuables founder Alain Dumait said: “the very freedom of individuals depends on competition. Including in the tax sector.”

ATR President Grover Norquist spent yesterday rallying Conservatives in Colorado to contact their representatives to urge repeal of all Obamacare taxes.

Grover spoke at Politics on the Rocks, a regular gathering of conservative professionals and activists, to explain how abolishing Obamacare’s taxes - especially the Individual and Employer Mandates, Health Insurance Tax, Medical Device Tax - would provide much-needed relief to the paychecks of families across the country and reduce healthcare costs for everyone.

Grover also appeared in studio for the Dan Clapis Show, a Colorado-based radio show, to discuss healthcare reform and taxes. During the interview, Grover explained that Obamacare’s taxes have already driven costs up and reduced choice. While the effort to pass the Graham-Cassidy healthcare reform legislation is undoubtedly a step in the right direction, it is also important that all of Obamacare’s taxes are addressed.

Obamacare, from the start, was a trillion-dollar collection of tax hikes with a stethoscope stapled to the top. While passing the Graham-Cassidy bill would be an improvement over the status quo of Obamacare, it is also important that the taxes that the bill does not touch are repealed.

Funding for state infrastructure improvement projects has increasingly become a point of contention in the last decade. With state and local lawmakers examining new sources of revenue, tax increases are often pinned as the solution. Yet increasing taxes ignores more efficient legislative solutions that could free up billions in funding, such as implementing “Open Competition” laws. Currently, outdated “Closed Competition” laws are wasting taxpayer dollars, promoting cronyism, and whittling out American firms from the procurement process.

State and local governments throughout the country are imposing these anti-competitive practices – most notably in regards to materials used in water infrastructure projects. Certain products and materials, often proven to be safer and more affordable, are unfairly outlawed from being used in publicly funded projects.

Many closed competition laws were put in place decades before new and advanced materials existed, or were put in place for protectionist reasons. As a result, American taxpayers have been deprived of savings that result from competition in the procurement process by governments eager to pick winners and losers.

Cities in Arkansas, Michigan, North Carolina, South Carolina and Ohio have all significantly saved taxpayer dollars since implementing open competition laws. Fayetteville, Arkansas implemented open competition laws and saved taxpayers $278,625 per mile on water infrastructure piping compared to Hot Springs, which has closed competition laws in place.

Similarly, Charlotte North Carolina implemented open competition laws resulting in taxpayer savings of $155, 902 per mile of pipe compared to closed competition Raleigh. All told open competition cities see on average taxpayer savings of $100,000 or more per mile of pipe compared to closed competition cities, and that is just with regard to water infrastructure.

Opponents of open competition naturally are the protected interests white-knuckling their 100 year-old monopolies that see competition as a threat to the status quo. Yet it is the status quo that is driving up the cost of infrastructure projects for state and local taxpayers and pushing lawmakers to turn to big government solutions such as increasing the gas tax.

Additionally, open competition laws could also be beneficial at the federal level. A study released by the National Taxpayers Union (NTU) found that an entire replacement of U.S. water infrastructure would cost $1.32 trillion. Transitioning to an open competition process would reduce that number by 28% or $371 billion.

As these taxpayer savings relate only to water infrastructure projects, the savings to taxpayers from a wider application of open competition laws to the government infrastructure procurement process could be even greater. In addition to states, Congressional lawmakers should look to introduce federal legislation that allows for an open and competitive procurement process for construction materials.

In May of this year, Americans for Tax Reform, joined by 23 other organizations, led a coalition letter to Congress requesting that any federal infrastructure legislation should include language that clearly requires an open and competitive bidding process for materials that will be used in infrastructure projects.

In the coming year as state and federal lawmakers begin looking for ways to shore up spending on infrastructure projects, passing legislation to implement open competition laws should be an obvious free-market solution. Doing so would provide lawmakers a chance to be efficient stewards of taxpayer dollars, prevent misguided tax hikes, and improve America’s infrastructure.

Gonzales posted a video to Facebook this week after receiving a copy of the Taxpayer Protection Pledge. The Pledge, which ATR offers to every candidate and incumbent for state and federal office, is a written promise to a lawmaker’s constituents detailing their commitment to oppose all tax increases.

In his brief video, Gonzalez criticizes Grover Norquist, President and founder of ATR, for his resolution to limit government. After admitting that Massachusetts is “the most expensive state in the nation”, Mr. Gonzales affirmed his support for a tax increase.

“So Grover, here’s what I say to your Taxpayer Protection Pledge” said Mr. Gonzalez as he proceeded to rip up the printed document at the end of the video.

In a tweet, Norquist replied: “You are a Democrat running for Governor and you are promising to increases taxes yet again on the Bay state. Boring. Been there. Did that.”

You are a Democrat running for Governor and you are promising to increase taxes yet again on the Bay state.
Boring. Been there. Did that. https://t.co/ciJRXsIvDn

Sen. Bernie Sanders is once again calling for extreme tax hikes to pay for his plans, this time for a government-run single payer health care system. The plan will come in at a cost of $1.38 trillion per year and will impose across the board tax hikes, including:

-An income tax rate of 52%

-Taxing ALL capital gains as ordinary income, meaning the current top capital gains rate of 23.8% would jump to 52%

-Massive hike in the Death Tax

-American families making as little as $28,900 per year will face a 2.2 percent tax on their income

-A $630 billion tax hike aimed at employers, which will just end up hitting workers

-Sanders also calls for more tax complexity and more tax brackets: 37%, 43%, 48% and of course the 52%

ATR commends Sen. John Barrasso (R-Wyo.) for asking CBO to score the Sanders plan. As with most left wing programs, the Sanders plan will undoubtedly cost much more than he claims.

The Tennessee Department of Safety wrongly paid for food totaling over $110K with funds collected through civil asset forfeiture, the Inspector General reported last Thursday.

Passed in 1984, the Comprehensive Crime Control Act established the Department of Justice’s Asset Forfeiture Program (AFP) which allows law enforcement to seize assets from individuals suspected with involvement in illegal activity, even if there are no formal charges.

Under the AFP, the Equitable Sharing Program was established allowing state and local law enforcement agencies involved in federal crime crackdown efforts to claim a portion of any seized money and property. This allows local police forces to ignore state property protections in favor of lower federal standards

While civil asset forfeiture comes under greater scrutiny in recent years, there are some limits set on the scope in which seized funds can be spent on, barring agencies from purchasing bayonets, grenade launchers, food, and other extravagant expenses.

Between 2014 and 2016 Tennessee’s Department of Safety spent $112,614 of seized cash on catering, banquet tickets, and retail food purchases, a clear violation of the limits established by the Department of Justice.

When the Inspector General presented this finding to the department its Controller said “that he did not know these expenditures were unallowable”.

Beyond that, the agency further neglected to adhere to DOJ rules, failing to file receipts of requested funds, and even filed their FY 2014 report 19 days late.

It’s clear that DOJ efforts to reign in and prevent abuse of the Equitable Sharing Program have failed, and the problem lies in the fundamental flaws surrounding the Asset Forfeiture Program as a whole where due process and presumption of innocence are blatantly ignored in favor of big-government draconian policies.

These developments are just another example of countless abuses resulting from the program. The men and women of law enforcement are entrusted with enforcing the rule of law, yet civil asset forfeiture undermines their ability to do so by taking advantage of the communities they are sworn to protect. In an age of great divisiveness, the last thing our police need is greater scrutiny and condemnation due this government program that only furthers the polarization and makes their jobs harder.

This leaves it upon state legislatures and the federal government to end civil asset forfeiture as a practice so that innocent Americans should no longer have to fear that their property will be taken away without due process.

On Friday, Americans for Tax Reform President Grover Norquist wrote to Rep. Mark Meadows (N.C.) and Rep. James Langevin (R.I) expressing his support for their bill, HR 3751, the Protecting the American Process for Election Results (PAPER) Act. If enacted, the PAPER Act would take the necessary steps to secure and strengthen the nation’s election security system.

In an age of heightened security risks from nations like North Korea and Iran trying to disrupt our nation’s elections, this bill is the first step in ensuring that American voters exercise their right without interference from those hoping to undermine our democratic institutions. Our representational democracy is built upon a reliable election process, and this must be safeguarded at all costs.

In a press release on the bill, Rep. Meadows said, “the PAPER Act would be a major step forward in securing our election process, updating the security of our voter logs, and allowing for efficient and effective audits of election results”.

Mr. Norquist urges all of Rep. Meadows’ and Rep. Langevin’s colleagues to “support this important common-sense measure”.

As the letter notes, the tax code today serves well-connected special interests, rather than hard working American families. Americans are frustrated with this rigged system, and it is imperative that lawmakers ensure that comprehensive, pro-growth tax reform is signed into law this year.

On behalf of the undersigned organizations, we write to urge passage of comprehensive, pro-growth tax reform in 2017.

In the past 30 years, the tax code has expanded in size and complexity. Today, the code serves well-connected special interests, not hard working American families. After many years of inaction, Congress and the administration have a chance to fix our broken tax system this year by making it fairer, simpler, and less burdensome.

There is broad consensus on the need for tax reform. With the 2018 midterm elections in sight, it is also crucial that bold policies keeping the promises made to the American people are realized soon.

Numerous polls have shown widespread public support for tax reform that lowers rates for all and reforms the code based on the principles of simplicity, fairness, and equity. Americans are frustrated with the rigged system that favors the politically connected and lobbyists at the expense of ordinary Americans.

It is key that tax reform reduce rates for Americans across the board, drastically simplifies the code for families and individuals, ends the Death Tax, unrigs the system to promote a healthy economy, and implements a territorial system of taxation so businesses large and small can compete.

2017 represents an important opportunity to provide financial security to hardworking taxpayers by signing tax reform into law. We applaud the work that each of you have already taken to ensure tax reform is enacted in 2017 and stand ready to continue working with you in the second half of the year.

Sincerely,

Grover NorquistPresident, Americans for Tax Reform

Christine HarbinVice President of External Affairs, Americans for Prosperity

James L. MartinFounder & Chairman, 60 Plus Association

Dan GreenbergPresident, Advance Arkansas Institute

Phil KerpenPresident, American Commitment

Daniel SchneiderExecutive Director, American Conservative Union

Steve PociaskPresident, American Consumer Institute

Tim DoyleVice President of Policy & General Counsel, American Council for Capital Formation

In her new book What Happened Hillary Clinton reveals she was “fascinated” by the idea of a carbon tax and a financial transactions tax. She wanted to take the money generated by both taxes, filter it through the Washington D.C. bureaucracy, and then send everyone a check as part of a Universal Basic Income scheme.

The whole process would be “a way of making every American feel more connected to our country and to one another – part of something bigger than ourselves.”

She writes:

If you view the nation’s financial system as a shared resource, then you can start raising real money from things like a financial transactions tax. Same with the air we breathe and carbon pricing. Once you capitalize the fund, you can provide every American with a modest basic income every year. Besides cash in people’s pockets, it would also be a way of making every American feel more connected to our country and to one another – part of something bigger than ourselves.

Clinton said she worked for weeks on the issue:

I was fascinated by this idea, as was my husband, and we spent weeks working with our policy team to see if it could be viable enough to include in my campaign.

Though she found the idea “exciting” and “tantalizing” it was only dropped because she “couldn’t make the numbers work.”

During the campaign, Clinton publicly proposed a series of tax increases, which amounted to a minimum $1 trillion over ten years. She campaigned on a 65% Death Tax, a personal income tax hike, a corporate income tax hike, and an “exit tax.” She also said she would not veto a payroll tax hike on all Americans, and cracked open the door to a carbon tax. Clinton even endorsed a steep new local soda tax in Philadelphia.

The official 2016 Democrat Party platform calls for a carbon tax. The official 2016 Republican Party platform rejects any and all carbon taxes.

In the book, Clinton suggested yet another tax: “taxing net worth.” She describes this tax as a “transformative” idea.